4 ms·
The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work (with th
by sclangdon 8y ago
The question is, would the Stones be as popular today if they also split up after 7 years at the top? I'd argue they would since all of their best work (with the exception of Exile on Main St. - which was released in their 8th year) was released in this time.
Of course I'm not going to argue that anyone is as popular as the Beatles, but I'm pretty sure the Stones would also have had universal long lasting popularty if they had only been around for the same amount of time.
You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly, McCartney had a very successful solo career after the Beatles, during which time he released way more albums than the Stones in the same time period and did his own share of touring. Secondly, McCartney owns a significant music publishing catalogue and has other business ventures.
- k__ 8y agoI had the impression most of their fame came from the fact that they are the oldest rock band alive.
- peteradio 8y agoYou take that back!
- gknoy 8y agoI can base this only on my father's anecdotes as a guitar player from that time, but he told me that the musical complexity and chord progressions used in the Beatles' songs were significantly different than the music he had heard from other bands of the time. I'm not sure if one would say "mindblowing", but they were the kind of musician that inspired other musicians, not merely audiences. [According to my father, at least]
- avar 8y ago> You also can't compare the wealth of McCartney to Jagger. Firstly[...] I'd say firstly because even if they had 100% comparable careers comparing the current net worth of two people makes no sense when you're trying to establish what was a more "successful" approach in terms of earned income. Maybe Jagger made way more money than McCartney and just spent it all on private jets, gambling etc., while McCartney invested it.
- code_duck 8y agoOr the question is, would the Stones be as popular if Mick Jagger was shot in 1980? I don’t get how this is a fair comparison. The Beatles could hardly still be playing.
- kakarot 8y agoThe Beatles broke up a full ten years before John Lennon was shot. That only cemented their fame, it didn't do much to create it nor did it do anything for the band while they were active.
- code_duck 8y agoPlenty of bands from then have toured with original members of a couple replacements years after they initially broke up. The Rolling Stones, for instance have changed much of their line-up. Pink Floyd is another example.